Pages

Saturday, April 19, 2014

From
time to time I will post a few lines of commentary on the Shakespearean sonnets.
Though, of late, I have been proceeding in numerical order, I reserve the right
to deviate from that pattern.

Unthrifty
loveliness, why dost thou spend

Upon thyself thy
beauty’s legacy?

Nature’s
bequest gives nothing, but doth lend,

And, being
frank, she lends to those are free.

Then,
beauteous niggard, why dost thou abuse

The bounteous
largess given thee to give?

Profitless
usurer, why dost thou use

So great a
sum of sums yet canst not live?

For having
traffic with thyself alone,

Thou of
thyself thy sweet self dost deceive.

Then how when
nature calls thee to be gone,

What
acceptable audit canst thou leave?

Thy unused
beauty must be tombed with thee,

Which usèd lives th' executor to
be.

With this sonnet, Shakespeare continues
his somewhat unusual and roundabout praise of the Fair Youth. Here, the subject
of the poem continues to be lectured, presumably for his reluctance to engage
in a romantic partnership.

For me, one interesting point here, as
is true of many of these Fair Youth sonnets, is just how odd this praise is. I
cannot think of any other literary source that chastises an individual for failing
to share his or her beauty with the world. Once again, the great poet almost
seems to be taking on the role of an interfering relative. That is, of course,
assuming that the voice of the poem is not extorting the subject of the poem to
establish a relationship with the writer himself.

What really stands out in these lines is
the financial metaphor. The unwillingness of the Fair Youth to form a romantic
attachment is compared to a profligate spender and bad investor. Words like
“Unthrifty,”“legacy,” “executor,” etc. emphasize
the point. This theme just adds to the quirkiness of it all. Once again, it is
not often that romantic solitude is compared to such pecuniary matters. With lines like “What acceptable audit canst thou leave?” I get the impression that Shakespeare may be
attempting to be playful with us.

On a side note, I also think that it is a
bit extraordinary that Shakespeare’s references to the world of money should be
so applicable and understandable some four hundred years later. The terminology
and concepts used here have remained remarkably consistent over time. Some
things have hardly changed!

I have used the word “sublime” to
describe other Shakespeare sonnets. I do not feel that these lines reach that
same level of aesthetic beauty. In fact, they likely were not meant to. The sonnets
are diverse little works, and sometimes the poet was not reaching for such sweeping
grandeur. Instead, I would use the words “very clever” to describe this verse.

Saturday, April 12, 2014

Thomas
B. Allen’s Tories:
Fighting for the King in America's First Civil Waris an extensive examination of the portion of the
American population who chose to remain loyal to Great Britain during the
American Revolutionary period. Though flawed, this is an engaging and a
uniquely important work.

The
American Revolutionary War era is a subject on which I have done a fairly extensive
amount of reading. In accounts of this period, there is, often in the background,
the ubiquitous presence of those Americans who sided with Great Britain. These people were known as Tories or Loyalists.
Existence and effects of these Loyalists often appear in various histories,
biographies and analyses. Anyone one who has read or engaged in studies of the
American Revolutionary period would have encountered information about this
group. Their influence was pervasive in America during that time. However, this
is one of the few works available that is solely dedicated to their impact and
experiences.

As
Allen and others have pointed out, it is difficult to ascertain just what
percentage of the American population were Tories. First, there were many
shades to political belief on both sides, ranging from the neutral to the
generally sympathetic to those who were actually willing to take up arms. Second,
there was no census or poll taken at that time. The best we have to go on are
statistical estimates and educated guesses. The evidence does suggest that the
percentage of Americans who opposed rebellion was both fluid and significant.

Allen
examines the political, social and military experiences of individuals and
families, as well as of geographical and ethnic groupings of Loyalists in great
detail. Certain patterns emerged.

In
the more populous areas, Loyalists, except in territory occupied by the
British, were generally outnumbered and less organized than Rebel groups. Thus,
they were persecuted, sometimes economically and socially, and often violently.
In areas controlled by the British, the opposite occurred, with Tories being
the persecutors and the Rebels becoming the persecuted. Loyalists inevitably
fled their homes for British controlled areas or to locations outside of the
American colonies altogether. Many males joined Loyalist military units that
fought independently or alongside regular British forces. Tories also opposed
the Rebel cause in ways as diverse as spying, supplying the British and even
counterfeiting continental currency in an effort to damage the American
economy.

In
the backcountry, ranging from northern New York state down through the Western
areas of all the colonies, as well as in “neutral territory” areas between the
opposing armies, a nasty, brutal civil war raged between Rebels, Loyalists and
Native Americans. These native people often, but not always, sided with the
Loyalists. This side of the conflict usually
took the form of raiding small settlements and farms belonging to both
colonists and Native Americans. Executions, torture, rape and pillaging were characteristic.
All sides commonly committed atrocities. Numerous horrific incidents are
chronicled in this book. This work will surprise anyone who believes that
horrendous crimes against civilians in wartime only began in the twentieth
century.

Allen
writes,

Intestine warfare was more than battles.
There was cruelty, there were murders in the night, and there were hangings
without trial.

One
example, not atypical, involving Native Americans is described,

“in March 1782, Pennsylvania militiamen
swooped down on the missionary village of Gnadenhutten. The Delaware Indians
there, converted to Christianity, were suspected of being Loyalists. The
militiamen rounded up the unarmed Indians and killed sixty-two adults and
thirty-four children by smashing their skulls with mallets. Two boys escaped
and spread word of the massacre. In an act of vengeance three months later,
Delaware braves tortured a captive militia officer who had nothing to do with
the raid and then burned him at the stake.”

Geographically,
ethnic experiences varied.The British occupied
New York City for most of the war. Thus, it became a Loyalist haven. The British
promised African American slaves freedom if they defected to the Loyalist side.
Many did so and served in African American Loyalist military units.

As
the title of the book indicates, one of Allen’s main points was that the
conflict between these different groups of Americans was a civil war. He
writes,

Our histories prefer to call the conflict
the Revolutionary War, but many people who lived through it called it civil
war. Americans who called themselves Patriots taunted, then tarred and
feathered, and, finally, when war came, killed American Tories.

Allen
not only makes a convincing case for his contention, but it is consistent with
my knowledge of the era. Tories and Rebels fought each other throughout the
colonies. Communities and families were divided. Allen details the nearly
constant and numerous battles and skirmishes, some large, some small, some
famous and some not so famous, where the two sides violently clashed.

One
somewhat glaring omission in this work is the puzzling lack of information
regarding the motivations as to why some choose the Tory side over the Rebel
side. While the motivations of certain specific groups, such as the African
American slaves, are examined, few words are spent on the reasons why many of
the wealthier families, whose experiences are otherwise covered in detail, chose
the Loyalist side. In addition, I find that while Allen’s writing style is occasionally
eloquent, it is sometimes sloppy and workman like. These are unfortunate shortcomings
in an otherwise recommended work.

I
must add that this book is really for folks with a basic to moderate
understanding of the history, society and major issues surrounding the American
Revolutionary War era. It is a vital piece of the puzzle that comprises the
history of that time. As just one part of the story, however, readers who have
little knowledge of the event will likely be somewhat of a loss to follow the
intricacies involved.

Despite
its flaws this is a must read for those interested in the American
Revolutionary Era. It covers what is an essential, but under-appreciated,
aspect of this historical event. It is comprehensive and enlightening. History
buffs will find it engaging and entertaining, but also disturbing in parts. This
is a worthy tome that tells a very important story.